Mediators of Well‐being in Ageing Family Carers of Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Increasing numbers of adults with an intellectual disability are being cared for at home by ageing parents. The purpose of this study was to determine whether carer resources (i.e. social support and formal service use) and carer appraisals of ageing and stress/burden mediate the relationships between (1) maladaptive behaviour and carer depression; (2) carer health and carer depression; (3) maladaptive behaviour and carer quality of life; and (4) carer health and carer quality of life. Methods Eighty parents over the age of 50 were interviewed using a number of measures concerning their overall health, perceptions of ageing and stress, depression, and their child's maladaptive behaviour. Results Carer perceptions of ageing and stress emerged as significant mediators of the relationship between carer health and depression. In addition, perceived carer stress emerged as a significant mediator of the relationship between maladaptive behaviour and carer depression. Resources and appraisals did not emerge as significant mediators in analyses using quality of life as a positive outcome. Conclusions Results highlight the important contributions of appraisals to well‐being and raise questions for future research regarding the role of resources such as informal and formal support in the coping process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".